Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 352 of 509 FirstFirst ... 252302342350351352353354362402452 ... LastLast
Results 5,266 to 5,280 of 7627
  1. #5266
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Steve smith was averaging 18 a game the year before. When accounting for how the game slowed down during this time and the defensive rules, that's actually going to be far better than the spurs leading scorer. Pippen was still outscoring Manu, despite Manu having a far larger role and that said differences in scoring that occurred during those eras.
    Sure, he was shooting 40% as well and jacking up more shots. He still wasn't getting accolades for that and so on nor is dropping off a few points and becoming efficient (like the spurs players were) that different. As stated that is what happens on good talented teams like the Spurs/Blazers. You put someone on a different team they might shoot more shots but efficiency and so on will fall off. Per 100 possessions he scored 4.5 less pts on 5 less shots. The only thing is he wasn't asked to be a volume player but fit a good system, like what SA had been doing from the start.

    As noted, Manu/Duncan/Parker all scored more per 100 possessions in the RS. This way you look at it makes no sense but if we wanna break it down in so many ways stats/accolades/rankings or looking at the per 100 numbers to see further it keeps pointing to all the same things. You are the only one going against this and have no arguments other than Steve Smith wasn't chucking inefficiently as much and Pippen's .2 ppg means more despite also playing 10 more mpg (while saying that gave Manu a larger role lol).

  2. #5267
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Not really relevant. That was probably their best year as a trio and even if that's not the case, this team was vastly better than the 14 team (especially as far as talent goes), yet they were embarrassed by the lakers (who had just really come together and were still figuring out how to play championship basketball). It's also worth noting that the powerhouse 2014 spurs followed up their title by getting ousted in the first round by a young clippers team (despite KL becoming a star and this team being more talented than the 14 team, as a result).
    I disagree very much that the 2008 Spurs were more talented than the 2014 Spurs. For one Duncan, Parker and Manu were not the worthless husks you're trying to portray. But also because in addition to having Kawhi (who was still very good at that point, they had players like Danny Green, Patty Mills, Belinelli, and Boris Diaw, none of whom were over the age of 31.

    It's also worth noting that you again focus on the one year after and not the year before.

  3. #5268
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yep, once Duncan retired they had a much better run (showing that he was a role player during this stretch). That was a much different team though (they now had LA and KL had turned into an elite player). The Celtics were better than this version of the spurs, yes. There is that whole thing you keep ignoring which is that the spurs really weren't that talented of a team during this stretch. Everyone of Boston's big 3 >> than the spurs best player during the 14 title run. I won't even get into Rondo and some of the bench guys. But yes, the Celtics were not just better, they were vastly superior to this spurs team.
    And yet, the Celtics were so vastly better they did exactly what the Spurs did except in the weaker conference. How is that possible?

    As for Duncan being a role player and them being better without him. Duncan averaged 8 PPG that year. In 2014 he averaged 15 (and 16 in the playoffs).

    You also do not want to admit Duncan made first team all-NBA and 1st team All-Defense in 2013. So in the span of a single year he went from one of the best players to a scrub?

  4. #5269
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Tim Duncan made All-NBA 3rd team and All-NBA Defensive 2nd team in 2015.

    Does Big Moves think Duncan went from All-NBA 1st team player in 2013, to scrub role player in 2014, back to All-NBA 3rd team player in 2015?

  5. #5270
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,658
    your on bigmove train your heading back to the station where your trip started.

  6. #5271
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,995
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Sure, he was shooting 40% as well and jacking up more shots. He still wasn't getting accolades for that and so on nor is dropping off a few points and becoming efficient (like the spurs players were) that different. As stated that is what happens on good talented teams like the Spurs/Blazers. You put someone on a different team they might shoot more shots but efficiency and so on will fall off. Per 100 possessions he scored 4.5 less pts on 5 less shots. The only thing is he wasn't asked to be a volume player but fit a good system, like what SA had been doing from the start.

    As noted, Manu/Duncan/Parker all scored more per 100 possessions in the RS. This way you look at it makes no sense but if we wanna break it down in so many ways stats/accolades/rankings or looking at the per 100 numbers to see further it keeps pointing to all the same things. You are the only one going against this and have no arguments other than Steve Smith wasn't chucking inefficiently as much and Pippen's .2 ppg means more despite also playing 10 more mpg (while saying that gave Manu a larger role lol).
    Manu had a larger role offensively, yes. Again, you're completely ignoring how those averages mean a lot more in 2000 than in 2014 given the rule changes. Whether a player does or doesnt get an accolade doesn't directly indicate the type of player they are.

  7. #5272
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostonjorge View Post
    Big Moves03 was right tho and you where wrong. Want what you wrong about? Duncan didnít make the all nab team in 2014. In fact he only made 1 all NBA 3rd team and 1 second all defense team for the rest of his career. Duncan was still a effective player but he had 16 seasons playing at a higher level in his career.

    Duncan in 02 was his highest scoring and highest rebounding season. All NBA and All defense. #2 in MVP. In the playoffs he had his highest points per game and second highest rebounds per game. Itís the only time he averaged 4 blocks a game in his career.

    The team to finally eliminate Duncan had a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar type player. A #2 non alpha player was able to lead the way with 26 points per game along with 5 rebounds and 5 assist. This player scored the most points and played the most mins with the highest GmSC on the team.

    Duncan did win one game tho in the series.
    So now we're supposed to trust you when you can't even read? This is what's wrong with people like you: You can't even understand what other people are typing in plain English but want to convince us that you're more educated or informed than someone.

    Valade never claimed that Duncan made the All-NBA team in 2014. He stated that he made the All-NBA team in 2013 but I do see he was incorrect about the All-NBA defensive first team in 2013. It was the second team. But regular season awards =/= being a better defender. Ibaka was NOT a better defender than Duncan but because the OKC were a hotter team and Ibaka was playing well, they awarded Ibaka the slot. I can't fault them for that but I can guarantee you no GM would take Ibaka over Duncan in the playoffs for defensive purposes. Duncan was still an elite defender - probably a top-five defensive player during those years.

    I love how you mention numbers when it comes to Duncan but you are likely the first person to discredit LeBron under the same scenario. You are right, Duncan's greatest individual success in terms of stats came when he was younger. The problem is, you're not understanding that Duncan, on a PER36 minute basis, was still an effective/elite player. Naturally, his advanced stats won't look as great because of a declined role but he was still very much the Duncan we knew.



    Here are the numbers for you... On a per minute basis, Duncan was still performing in line with his career averages. So not only are you ignorant, you are a simple-minded individual who lacks critical thinking skills so I will assume, based on your line of thinking, you aren't very bright.

  8. #5273
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    3,932
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Tim Duncan made All-NBA 3rd team and All-NBA Defensive 2nd team in 2015.

    Does Big Moves think Duncan went from All-NBA 1st team player in 2013, to scrub role player in 2014, back to All-NBA 3rd team player in 2015?
    Depends on whether or not it affects LeBron's legacy. Had it been Kobe or MJ, we all know the narrative behind Duncan's career would flip like a switch.

  9. #5274
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,995
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I disagree very much that the 2008 Spurs were more talented than the 2014 Spurs. For one Duncan, Parker and Manu were not the worthless husks you're trying to portray. But also because in addition to having Kawhi (who was still very good at that point, they had players like Danny Green, Patty Mills, Belinelli, and Boris Diaw, none of whom were over the age of 31.

    It's also worth noting that you again focus on the one year after and not the year before.
    This was probably their best season as a trio. One of parker's best seasons and Manu's best season. Probably the last or second to last season Duncan was the best PF in the league. Not sure how you think the 2014 team would stack up to this. Sure, they had KL, but he wasn't a star yet. They also still had Bowen and Finely was an excellent bench player (similar to what Manu was in 14). The spurs actually had an excellent bench in 08. The 14 bench might've been a little better (this is arguable because guys were required to do more in 14 off the bench to make up for the lack of talent on the team), but not anywhere near being good enough to make up for the difference play in Duncan, Parker, and Manu. In 08 you still have a HOF caliber Duncan, whereas in 14 you have a shell of that player. It's silly that this is even being discussed.

  10. #5275
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Depends on whether or not it affects LeBron's legacy. Had it been Kobe or MJ, we all know the narrative behind Duncan's career would flip like a switch.
    Exactly. Their agenda is very transparent. Despite the Spurs being perennial 60+ game winners who had made the WCF and the Finals the prior to 2 years, they had to suck because otherwise that would make LeBron look good.

  11. #5276
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Here's some Greatest NBA teams of all time list:

    https://247sports.com/nba/golden-sta.../#121160397_20

    2014 Spurs 15th

    https://sports.yahoo.com/best-teams-...014152676.html

    2014 Spurs 13th

    https://www.thedelite.com/the-best-n...f-all-time/10/

    2014 Spurs 16th


    Now my point isn't that any of these lists are correct, it's that most people view those Spurs teams as extremely good. So BigMoves trying to trivialize them and say they aren't that good is a very atypical view in basketball circles.

  12. #5277
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Manu had a larger role offensively, yes. Again, you're completely ignoring how those averages mean a lot more in 2000 than in 2014 given the rule changes. Whether a player does or doesnt get an accolade doesn't directly indicate the type of player they are.
    You haven't provided any legitimate reasoning though is the issue. It isn't just the stats/accolades/player rankings/everyone else's eye test. It is all of those combined without any real explanation from you on the inconsistency in judging talent/teams.

    You need to start being more consistent on when top talent and overall team talent work. You need to start actually giving real explanations on why teams are better when everything presented so far says differently from stats to accolades to rankings shared to most others eye test (there was a thread asking when SA was no longer great and people say when Kawhi left not these years) etc. etc.

  13. #5278
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,995
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And yet, the Celtics were so vastly better they did exactly what the Spurs did except in the weaker conference. How is that possible?

    As for Duncan being a role player and them being better without him. Duncan averaged 8 PPG that year. In 2014 he averaged 15 (and 16 in the playoffs).

    You also do not want to admit Duncan made first team all-NBA and 1st team All-Defense in 2013. So in the span of a single year he went from one of the best players to a scrub?
    Because the circumstances are different. Pretty silly logic to say two teams accomplished the same thing and therefore they are the same. It doesn't matter to me whether Duncan made first team or not in 13, he didn't make it in 14 and both version of Duncan were a shell of the player he was in 08. Duncan not really one of the best players in 2013. He had been absent from the all-NBA team altogether for a few years at that point and then didn't make it the following year. Even if we agree that Duncan was one of the best players in 2013, the team still wouldn't compare talent wise to the heat...AND he certainly wasn't that in 2014 so it's all irrelevant.

  14. #5279
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    This was probably their best season as a trio. One of parker's best seasons and Manu's best season. Probably the last or second to last season Duncan was the best PF in the league. Not sure how you think the 2014 team would stack up to this. Sure, they had KL, but he wasn't a star yet. They also still had Bowen and Finely was an excellent bench player (similar to what Manu was in 14). The spurs actually had an excellent bench in 08. The 14 bench might've been a little better (this is arguable because guys were required to do more in 14 off the bench to make up for the lack of talent on the team), but not anywhere near being good enough to make up for the difference play in Duncan, Parker, and Manu. In 08 you still have a HOF caliber Duncan, whereas in 14 you have a shell of that player. It's silly that this is even being discussed.
    Yes, in 08 they had a great bench of very old players. You can't talk about how amazing all the 37 year olds were on the 08 bench and then talk about how old and broken down all the 37 year olds were for the 14 Spurs. Be consistent.

    Also, the idea that Duncan was a shell of himself is just laughably stupid. He made the All-NBA 1st team in 2013. He made the All-NBA 3rd team in 2015. Duncan's per36 stats in 2008 were 20.5 PPG and 12 RPG. In 2014 they were 21 PPG and 12 RPG.

    He was not some broken down version. He was still an excellent player. Stop with the nonsense.

  15. #5280
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,995
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Here's some Greatest NBA teams of all time list:

    https://247sports.com/nba/golden-sta.../#121160397_20

    2014 Spurs 15th

    https://sports.yahoo.com/best-teams-...014152676.html

    2014 Spurs 13th

    https://www.thedelite.com/the-best-n...f-all-time/10/

    2014 Spurs 16th


    Now my point isn't that any of these lists are correct, it's that most people view those Spurs teams as extremely good. So BigMoves trying to trivialize them and say they aren't that good is a very atypical view in basketball circles.
    One, thats laughable that they are on that list...two, I never said that they weren't that good as a team. I said that they weren't all that talented. That's a lot different. They played very well. They were a very good team. They lacked talent though compared to other championship teams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •